There have been other controlled studies of cartridge/bullet combinations over the years.
Sorry, but the Swedish study doesn't qualify as controlled. It's a survey of the hunter's impressions, which means it's anecdotal. I'm not saying it doesn't have value, but studies of this type are overturned regularly in other disciplines, such as medical research.
One made during elk culling on the National Bison Range in Montana compared the .30-06 to the .375 H&H. The only difference noted was that the .375 was somewhat more likely to leave a blood trail. Otherwise the results were pretty much identical--with good bullet placement.
Not at all surprising given the Federal 30-06 HE load launches a 180 grain bullet at 2880 fps and has an OGW of 511 lbs or better out to 400 yards. Unless they are risking misplaced shots by shooting at ranges of more than 400 yards the 30-06 is more than adequate for the job and dead is dead. Let them try the same experiment with a 6.5x55 and see if they duplicate the Swedish results.
Other studies have been published with various animals from Texas whitetails to elephants in Africa. I have personally been on numerous cull hunts in several countries in the past decade, and the basic conclusion I've come to is that bullet placement is at least 90% of the equation. I'd rate bullet construction at 9%, and the actual cartridge at 1%.
Carful, you're getting close to coming up with a killing power formula yourself.
I have discussed this with engineers before, and they never seem to be able to grasp the fact that a bullet that expands and penetrates through the center of both lungs, just above the heart, kills very quickly no matter the bullet diameter, weight, foot-pounds or range.
And a bullet through the brain kills faster than the nerves can transmit the pain. Problem is the target sometimes moves just as I'm squeezing off my shot and I can't always get ideal shot placement. Now I can worry about my comfort and use an easy to carry low-recoil rifle/load, or I can anticipate such a misplaced shot and use a caliber that can punch through thick bone and take out the vitals on the other side. I don't believe in being a minimalist when it comes to taking game, nor do I want overkill that destroys too much of the meat. I find the OGW formula strikes a good balance.
Now, if you have seen hundreds or thousands of animals shot with various cartridge/bullet combinations, and have found a strong correlation between the Matunas formula and field results, then I'd love to see the report.
I don't see where anyone is saying the Matunas formula would lead someone to use an inadequate caliber/load, only that following it requires using more gun than is needed with good shot placement and the loss of accuracy due to heavy recoil may preclude good shot placement.
Hitting a 12-inch target depends a lot on the range and the range depends a lot on where you hunt. I sometimes hunt in the Great Lakes region where you seldom get shots over 100 yards and sometimes the range is so close you could take deer with a bayonet or more often with your pickup truck. The problem is that shots often involve cutting through brush and the bullet has to be big enough to stay on course, not fly apart, and arrive with enough velocity to do the job. Culling elk in Montana likely doesn't apply under such circumstances.
